From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E639A1F461 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:21:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725989AbfGLFVL (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 01:21:11 -0400 Received: from bsmtp7.bon.at ([213.33.87.19]:27989 "EHLO bsmtp7.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725791AbfGLFVL (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 01:21:11 -0400 Received: from dx.site (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp7.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45lLqm5sGTz5tlC; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 07:21:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.site (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE821E78; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 07:21:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] range-diff: fix some 'hdr-check' and sparse warnings To: Ramsay Jones Cc: Thomas Gummerer , Junio C Hamano , GIT Mailing-list References: From: Johannes Sixt Message-ID: <41a60e60-d2c0-7d54-5456-e44d106548a4@kdbg.org> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 07:21:08 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 12.07.19 um 00:03 schrieb Ramsay Jones: > diff --git a/range-diff.c b/range-diff.c > index ba1e9a4265..0f24a4ad12 100644 > --- a/range-diff.c > +++ b/range-diff.c > @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static int read_patches(const char *range, struct string_list *list) > } > > if (starts_with(line, "diff --git")) { > - struct patch patch = { 0 }; > + struct patch patch = { NULL }; There is nothing wrong with 0 here. IMHO, zero-initialization should *always* be written as = { 0 } and nothing else. Changing 0 to NULL to pacify sparse encourages a wrong style. -- Hannes